Hey,
I want to run the profiler in certain times during the
day. Instead of me opening and closing sessions of
profiler, i extracted the script and run it through query
analyser (then schedula it as a job and run at the times i
want). I am testing this now and there seems to be a
problem. I run the script i got and when i execute it in
query anaylser the profiler file is created in the
location i want but no data is being written to it. I
cannot delete it because "the file is being used"... does
anyone know why this happenes? any work arrounds?
Help please!!Hi Claudia
This is normal.
Data is only written to the trace file in 128K chunks. So as soon as there
is 128K worth of events, you'll see some size for the file. If you stop and
close the trace, it will also write all the remaining data to the trace
file, or if the server is stopped.
--
HTH
--
Kalen Delaney
SQL Server MVP
www.SolidQualityLearning.com
"Claudia" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:03dd01c39954$e85764d0$a001280a@.phx.gbl...
> Hey,
> I want to run the profiler in certain times during the
> day. Instead of me opening and closing sessions of
> profiler, i extracted the script and run it through query
> analyser (then schedula it as a job and run at the times i
> want). I am testing this now and there seems to be a
> problem. I run the script i got and when i execute it in
> query anaylser the profiler file is created in the
> location i want but no data is being written to it. I
> cannot delete it because "the file is being used"... does
> anyone know why this happenes? any work arrounds?
> Help please!!sql
Showing posts with label certain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label certain. Show all posts
Friday, March 30, 2012
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Processor@50+ %
Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software and
sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over some
of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for some
time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant
with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if
it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
version is 8.00.194.
Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
Do you think it will help to install these?
there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
SP4
i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
that server ^_^
"Mrcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> and
> sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> some
> of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> some
> time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> Proliant
> with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> if
> it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
|||AV like in Anti-Virus ?
I have Symantec Antivirus Corporate Ed. v. 9.0.0.338.
"Coldman" wrote:
> there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
> SP4
> i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
> that server ^_^
> "Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi,
Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
queries.
Else i can suggest to check ur code.
hope this help u
from
killer
|||Well, the code wasn't written by me, but SQL Profiler says on EventClass
column: "SQL: Batch completed". I'm not sure if this answers your question,
but...
thx
"doller" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
> queries.
> Else i can suggest to check ur code.
> hope this help u
> from
> killer
>
|||Márcio Santos wrote:
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management
> software and sometimes when we do certain operations like an update,
> or delete over some of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server
> processor goes up to 50+ % for a considerable amont of time...
> causing the application to hang for some time. The database has
> 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant with a Xeon 2.0
> and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if it
> helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack.
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
50% utilization is nothing to worry about unless it's accompanied by
poorly performing queries. Check those updates to make sure they are
optimized. Sounds like you are running into table scan / clustered index
scan operations. If that's the case, there is a lot of blocking going on
and that's the reason for the application slow-down, not the cpu issue.
Also, you appear to be running the RTM release of SQL Server 2000 from 5
years ago which is quite buggy. Any reason you have chosen to not
install any service packs? You should install SP3 or SP4.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
|||Mrcio Santos (MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
From your description, I would not expect SP3/SP4 to solve your urgent
problems, but nevettheless, I strongly recommend that you install at least
SP3, preferrably SP4.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp
sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over some
of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for some
time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant
with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if
it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
version is 8.00.194.
Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
Do you think it will help to install these?
there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
SP4
i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
that server ^_^
"Mrcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> and
> sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> some
> of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> some
> time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> Proliant
> with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> if
> it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
|||AV like in Anti-Virus ?
I have Symantec Antivirus Corporate Ed. v. 9.0.0.338.
"Coldman" wrote:
> there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
> SP4
> i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
> that server ^_^
> "Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
>
>
|||Hi,
Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
queries.
Else i can suggest to check ur code.
hope this help u
from
killer
|||Well, the code wasn't written by me, but SQL Profiler says on EventClass
column: "SQL: Batch completed". I'm not sure if this answers your question,
but...
thx
"doller" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
> queries.
> Else i can suggest to check ur code.
> hope this help u
> from
> killer
>
|||Márcio Santos wrote:
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management
> software and sometimes when we do certain operations like an update,
> or delete over some of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server
> processor goes up to 50+ % for a considerable amont of time...
> causing the application to hang for some time. The database has
> 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant with a Xeon 2.0
> and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if it
> helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack.
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
50% utilization is nothing to worry about unless it's accompanied by
poorly performing queries. Check those updates to make sure they are
optimized. Sounds like you are running into table scan / clustered index
scan operations. If that's the case, there is a lot of blocking going on
and that's the reason for the application slow-down, not the cpu issue.
Also, you appear to be running the RTM release of SQL Server 2000 from 5
years ago which is quite buggy. Any reason you have chosen to not
install any service packs? You should install SP3 or SP4.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com
|||Mrcio Santos (MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
From your description, I would not expect SP3/SP4 to solve your urgent
problems, but nevettheless, I strongly recommend that you install at least
SP3, preferrably SP4.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinf...2000/books.asp
Processor@50+ %
Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software and
sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over some
of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for some
time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant
with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if
it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
version is 8.00.194.
Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
Do you think it will help to install these?there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
SP4
i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
that server ^_^
"Mrcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> and
> sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> some
> of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> some
> time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> Proliant
> with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> if
> it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?|||AV like in Anti-Virus '
I have Symantec Antivirus Corporate Ed. v. 9.0.0.338.
"Coldman" wrote:
> there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should appl
y
> SP4
> i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
> that server ^_^
> "Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi,
Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
queries.
Else i can suggest to check ur code.
hope this help u
from
killer|||Well, the code wasn't written by me, but SQL Profiler says on EventClass
column: "SQL: Batch completed". I'm not sure if this answers your question,
but...
thx
"doller" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
> queries.
> Else i can suggest to check ur code.
> hope this help u
> from
> killer
>|||Márcio Santos wrote:
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management
> software and sometimes when we do certain operations like an update,
> or delete over some of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server
> processor goes up to 50+ % for a considerable amont of time...
> causing the application to hang for some time. The database has
> 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant with a Xeon 2.0
> and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if it
> helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack.
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
50% utilization is nothing to worry about unless it's accompanied by
poorly performing queries. Check those updates to make sure they are
optimized. Sounds like you are running into table scan / clustered index
scan operations. If that's the case, there is a lot of blocking going on
and that's the reason for the application slow-down, not the cpu issue.
Also, you appear to be running the RTM release of SQL Server 2000 from 5
years ago which is quite buggy. Any reason you have chosen to not
install any service packs? You should install SP3 or SP4.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Mrcio Santos (MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
From your description, I would not expect SP3/SP4 to solve your urgent
problems, but nevettheless, I strongly recommend that you install at least
SP3, preferrably SP4.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp
sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over some
of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for some
time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant
with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if
it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
version is 8.00.194.
Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
Do you think it will help to install these?there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
SP4
i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
that server ^_^
"Mrcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> and
> sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> some
> of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> some
> time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> Proliant
> with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> if
> it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?|||AV like in Anti-Virus '
I have Symantec Antivirus Corporate Ed. v. 9.0.0.338.
"Coldman" wrote:
> there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should appl
y
> SP4
> i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
> that server ^_^
> "Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
>
>|||Hi,
Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
queries.
Else i can suggest to check ur code.
hope this help u
from
killer|||Well, the code wasn't written by me, but SQL Profiler says on EventClass
column: "SQL: Batch completed". I'm not sure if this answers your question,
but...
thx
"doller" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
> queries.
> Else i can suggest to check ur code.
> hope this help u
> from
> killer
>|||Márcio Santos wrote:
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management
> software and sometimes when we do certain operations like an update,
> or delete over some of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server
> processor goes up to 50+ % for a considerable amont of time...
> causing the application to hang for some time. The database has
> 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant with a Xeon 2.0
> and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if it
> helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack.
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
50% utilization is nothing to worry about unless it's accompanied by
poorly performing queries. Check those updates to make sure they are
optimized. Sounds like you are running into table scan / clustered index
scan operations. If that's the case, there is a lot of blocking going on
and that's the reason for the application slow-down, not the cpu issue.
Also, you appear to be running the RTM release of SQL Server 2000 from 5
years ago which is quite buggy. Any reason you have chosen to not
install any service packs? You should install SP3 or SP4.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Mrcio Santos (MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
From your description, I would not expect SP3/SP4 to solve your urgent
problems, but nevettheless, I strongly recommend that you install at least
SP3, preferrably SP4.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp
Processor@50+ %
Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software and
sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over some
of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for some
time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant
with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if
it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
version is 8.00.194.
Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
Do you think it will help to install these?there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
SP4
i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
that server ^_^
"Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> and
> sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> some
> of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> some
> time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> Proliant
> with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> if
> it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?|||AV like in Anti-Virus '
I have Symantec Antivirus Corporate Ed. v. 9.0.0.338.
"Coldman" wrote:
> there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
> SP4
> i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
> that server ^_^
> "Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> > and
> > sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> > some
> > of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> > for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> > some
> > time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> > Proliant
> > with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> > if
> > it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> > version is 8.00.194.
> >
> > Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> > Do you think it will help to install these?
>
>|||Hi,
Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
queries.
Else i can suggest to check ur code.
hope this help u
from
killer|||Well, the code wasn't written by me, but SQL Profiler says on EventClass
column: "SQL: Batch completed". I'm not sure if this answers your question,
but...
thx
"doller" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
> queries.
> Else i can suggest to check ur code.
> hope this help u
> from
> killer
>|||Márcio Santos wrote:
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management
> software and sometimes when we do certain operations like an update,
> or delete over some of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server
> processor goes up to 50+ % for a considerable amont of time...
> causing the application to hang for some time. The database has
> 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant with a Xeon 2.0
> and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if it
> helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack.
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
50% utilization is nothing to worry about unless it's accompanied by
poorly performing queries. Check those updates to make sure they are
optimized. Sounds like you are running into table scan / clustered index
scan operations. If that's the case, there is a lot of blocking going on
and that's the reason for the application slow-down, not the cpu issue.
Also, you appear to be running the RTM release of SQL Server 2000 from 5
years ago which is quite buggy. Any reason you have chosen to not
install any service packs? You should install SP3 or SP4.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Márcio Santos (MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
From your description, I would not expect SP3/SP4 to solve your urgent
problems, but nevettheless, I strongly recommend that you install at least
SP3, preferrably SP4.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.aspsql
sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over some
of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for some
time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant
with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if
it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
version is 8.00.194.
Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
Do you think it will help to install these?there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
SP4
i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
that server ^_^
"Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> and
> sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> some
> of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> some
> time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> Proliant
> with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> if
> it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?|||AV like in Anti-Virus '
I have Symantec Antivirus Corporate Ed. v. 9.0.0.338.
"Coldman" wrote:
> there is at least one remote exploit for SP2, so IMHO u really should apply
> SP4
> i had similar problem not long ago - the solution was changing the AV on
> that server ^_^
> "Márcio Santos" <MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:8DB469E6-9E40-4046-AE08-C82E81D0A647@.microsoft.com...
> > Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management software
> > and
> > sometimes when we do certain operations like an update, or delete over
> > some
> > of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server processor goes up to 50+ %
> > for a considerable amont of time... causing the application to hang for
> > some
> > time. The database has 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq
> > Proliant
> > with a Xeon 2.0 and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see
> > if
> > it helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack. SQL's
> > version is 8.00.194.
> >
> > Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> > Do you think it will help to install these?
>
>|||Hi,
Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
queries.
Else i can suggest to check ur code.
hope this help u
from
killer|||Well, the code wasn't written by me, but SQL Profiler says on EventClass
column: "SQL: Batch completed". I'm not sure if this answers your question,
but...
thx
"doller" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Are u using simple insert and delete statement or u use hetogenious
> queries.
> Else i can suggest to check ur code.
> hope this help u
> from
> killer
>|||Márcio Santos wrote:
> Hi, I have SQL server 2000 at my office used by our management
> software and sometimes when we do certain operations like an update,
> or delete over some of tables, some with 50.000+ records the server
> processor goes up to 50+ % for a considerable amont of time...
> causing the application to hang for some time. The database has
> 1.5GBs in size +/- the server is a HP Compaq Proliant with a Xeon 2.0
> and it had 1GB of ram, and I just installed + 1GB to see if it
> helped, but I had the exact same result, so it's not memory lack.
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
50% utilization is nothing to worry about unless it's accompanied by
poorly performing queries. Check those updates to make sure they are
optimized. Sounds like you are running into table scan / clustered index
scan operations. If that's the case, there is a lot of blocking going on
and that's the reason for the application slow-down, not the cpu issue.
Also, you appear to be running the RTM release of SQL Server 2000 from 5
years ago which is quite buggy. Any reason you have chosen to not
install any service packs? You should install SP3 or SP4.
David Gugick
Quest Software
www.imceda.com
www.quest.com|||Márcio Santos (MrcioSantos@.discussions.microsoft.com) writes:
> SQL's version is 8.00.194.
> Do you think that this problem might have been resolved with SP3/4 ?
> Do you think it will help to install these?
From your description, I would not expect SP3/SP4 to solve your urgent
problems, but nevettheless, I strongly recommend that you install at least
SP3, preferrably SP4.
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techinfo/productdoc/2000/books.aspsql
Processor question
Hello Everyone,
When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the processor
limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4 physical processors
or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper threading which in Windows
would give you 4? I a bit confused about that.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
Alex Anderson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
> that.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
issues and questions.
David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
Quest Software
|||David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a single
processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes MS
licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alex Anderson wrote:
> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
> issues and questions.
> --
> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
> Quest Software
>
|||Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know when
the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
|||Microsoft is often confusing, but most of the time they avoid active
stupidity. Remember, MS is a very large organization and sometimes it takes
a while for feedback to trickle through. This time, they appear to have
gotten it right.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:O0Cuq31IGHA.2708@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know
> when the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the processor
limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4 physical processors
or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper threading which in Windows
would give you 4? I a bit confused about that.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
Alex Anderson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
> that.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
issues and questions.
David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
Quest Software
|||David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a single
processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes MS
licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alex Anderson wrote:
> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
> issues and questions.
> --
> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
> Quest Software
>
|||Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know when
the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>
|||Microsoft is often confusing, but most of the time they avoid active
stupidity. Remember, MS is a very large organization and sometimes it takes
a while for feedback to trickle through. This time, they appear to have
gotten it right.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:O0Cuq31IGHA.2708@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know
> when the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
Processor question
Hello Everyone,
When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the processor
limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4 physical processors
or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper threading which in Windows
would give you 4? I a bit confused about that.
Thank you
Alex AndersonAlex Anderson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
> that.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
issues and questions.
--
David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
Quest Software|||David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a single
processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes MS
licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alex Anderson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
>> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
>> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
>> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
>> that.
>> Thank you
>> Alex Anderson
> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
> issues and questions.
> --
> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
> Quest Software
>|||Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know when
the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Alex Anderson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
>> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
>> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
>> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
>> that.
>> Thank you
>> Alex Anderson
>> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
>> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
>> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
>> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
>> issues and questions.
>> --
>> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
>> Quest Software
>|||Microsoft is often confusing, but most of the time they avoid active
stupidity. Remember, MS is a very large organization and sometimes it takes
a while for feedback to trickle through. This time, they appear to have
gotten it right.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:O0Cuq31IGHA.2708@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know
> when the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
>> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
>> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
>> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Alex Anderson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
>> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
>> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
>> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
>> that.
>> Thank you
>> Alex Anderson
>> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
>> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
>> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
>> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
>> issues and questions.
>> --
>> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
>> Quest Software
>>
>
When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the processor
limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4 physical processors
or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper threading which in Windows
would give you 4? I a bit confused about that.
Thank you
Alex AndersonAlex Anderson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
> that.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
issues and questions.
--
David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
Quest Software|||David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a single
processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes MS
licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alex Anderson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
>> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
>> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
>> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
>> that.
>> Thank you
>> Alex Anderson
> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
> issues and questions.
> --
> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
> Quest Software
>|||Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know when
the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Alex Anderson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
>> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
>> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
>> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
>> that.
>> Thank you
>> Alex Anderson
>> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
>> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
>> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
>> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
>> issues and questions.
>> --
>> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
>> Quest Software
>|||Microsoft is often confusing, but most of the time they avoid active
stupidity. Remember, MS is a very large organization and sometimes it takes
a while for feedback to trickle through. This time, they appear to have
gotten it right.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:O0Cuq31IGHA.2708@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know
> when the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
>> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
>> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
>> --
>> Geoff N. Hiten
>> Senior Database Administrator
>> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>>
>>
>> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
>> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>> Alex Anderson wrote:
>> Hello Everyone,
>> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
>> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
>> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
>> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
>> that.
>> Thank you
>> Alex Anderson
>> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
>> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
>> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
>> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
>> issues and questions.
>> --
>> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
>> Quest Software
>>
>
Processor question
Hello Everyone,
When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the processor
limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4 physical processors
or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper threading which in Windows
would give you 4? I a bit confused about that.
Thank you
Alex AndersonAlex Anderson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
> that.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
issues and questions.
David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
Quest Software|||David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a single
processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes MS
licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alex Anderson wrote:
> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
> issues and questions.
> --
> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
> Quest Software
>|||Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know when
the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>|||Microsoft is often confusing, but most of the time they avoid active
stupidity. Remember, MS is a very large organization and sometimes it takes
a while for feedback to trickle through. This time, they appear to have
gotten it right.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:O0Cuq31IGHA.2708@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know
> when the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the processor
limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4 physical processors
or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper threading which in Windows
would give you 4? I a bit confused about that.
Thank you
Alex AndersonAlex Anderson wrote:
> Hello Everyone,
> When a certain platform let it be standard or enterprise, the
> processor limitation on Standard is currently 4. Does that mean 4
> physical processors or if you had 2 physical processors with hyper
> threading which in Windows would give you 4? I a bit confused about
> that.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
issues and questions.
David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
Quest Software|||David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a single
processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes MS
licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> Alex Anderson wrote:
> Physical. In fact, it's my understanding that dual-core processors are
> going to be treated as a single processor according to the Microsoft
> Licensing. SO you need to license the physical CPUs in the box (for CPU
> licensing). As always, check with Microsoft Licensing for any licensing
> issues and questions.
> --
> David Gugick - SQL Server MVP
> Quest Software
>|||Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know when
the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
Thank you
Alex Anderson
"Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> David is correct. Multi-core and hyperthreaded processors count as a
> single processor for licensing and edition processor limits. This makes
> MS licensing highly competitive and much simpler than "the other guys".
> --
> Geoff N. Hiten
> Senior Database Administrator
> Microsoft SQL Server MVP
>
>
> "David Gugick" <david.gugick-nospam@.quest.com> wrote in message
> news:ebZRcptIGHA.1760@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>|||Microsoft is often confusing, but most of the time they avoid active
stupidity. Remember, MS is a very large organization and sometimes it takes
a while for feedback to trickle through. This time, they appear to have
gotten it right.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Alex Anderson" <AAnderson@.Murrieta.org> wrote in message
news:O0Cuq31IGHA.2708@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Thank you both for the information. You know Microsoft, you never know
> when the wool will be pulled over our eyes.
> Thank you
> Alex Anderson
> "Geoff N. Hiten" <SQLCraftsman@.gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:eJ1sIGuIGHA.1288@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
>
Monday, March 12, 2012
Processing incoming emails
How would I go about checking incoming e-mails? For example, on a certain e-mail address, I would get e-mails formatted in a certain way. According to the response, some scripts need to run/ some sql tables updates etc. How can one do this in (ASP) .NET with SQL Server? Anyone did this kind of stuff before?How do you want to check the emails? POP3? I use a very simple little email server that gives me COM access to mail message objects, so it was short work to watch for new messages and process them accordingly. However, if you want to check a remote email account, you'd probably need to use POP3 to retrieve the messages. There are some POP3 .Net controls available on the net, but they usually are not free.|||you need to deal with pop3:
http://www.gotdotnet.com/community/usersamples/Default.aspx?query=pop3|||What POP3 server do you use? Installing a mailserver on the server is no problem but I don't want to install Exchange just for one account. Do you have any example scripts? Thanks
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)